This topic is the flip-side of the "Consequences of abrogation" topic. Here, I suggest that we discuss the impact of the conclusion that no verse in the Quran has been abrogated, that all verses of the Quran must be complied with as is, that rulings of the Quran are the rulings to apply, even if there is evidence from the authentic Hadeeth, consensus of the scholars or history that a different ruling has been or should be applied.

How about this for starters,http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5988335? This is a recent book by Dr. Mostafa Mahmood, a very famous Islamic author may God bless his soul, in which he argues that there is no cause for stoning an adulteress. His main argument is that the rule for bond-maidens who commit adultery is specified by the Quran as one half that of the free woman (4:25) and stoning cannot be halved! Was it you, Pragmatic, who made this same argument to me the other day? Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa collaborated with Dr. Mahmood on the book.

Drs. Mahmood and As-Saqqa are not alone in their conclusion; Jawaad Moosa Muhammad Affaana published a book, called الرأي الصواب في منسوخ الكتاب, refuting the abrogation doctrine and asserted that "the stoning ruling has most certainly been abrogated" by the Quran. Dr. Mahmood adds that applying the stoning ruling thus causes a killing without equivalent (قتل نفس بغير نفس).

If one is convinced that 24:2 was not abrogated, since neither the Sunna nor the consensus can abrogate the Quran, then the penalty of fornication/adultery can only be the flogging specified in 24:2. Since no specific penalty for adultery, as opposed to fornication, was specified by the written text of the Quran, then its ruling is general for both adultery and fornication. God knows best.

Was it you, Pragmatic, who made this same argument to me the other day?

Yes, it was me!

Whenever the stoning penalty for adultery is brought up, I always wonder why people did not take 24:2 as abrogating that penalty? The Prophet (PBUH) is reported to have followed rules of previous revelations when no Quranic revelation had addressed the matter yet, and stoning was decreed in the Torah. I have not seen any specifics about the timing of the stoning incidents, or the alleged stoning verse, in relation to the timing of the revelation of 24:2, that would tell us that such incidents happened after 24:2 was revealed.

I am not claiming that the stoning penalty is valid or that it is not valid. I didn't research the subject sufficiently to come to a conclusion. I am only saying that people, in particular those who are pro-abrogation, have not documented what is necessary to argue that 24:2 specifies the penalty only for fornicators, not for adulterers.

I have not seen any specifics about the timing of the stoning incidents, or the alleged stoning verse, in relation to the timing of the revelation of 24:2, that would tell us that such incidents happened after 24:2 was revealed.

As referred to in this post, the timing is unknown. When timing information is uncertain and the doctrine allowing the Sunna to abrogate the Quran is highly debatable and not consented to by the majority, then there can be no cause to overrule the Quran in its statement of what the penalty is for adultery; it's flogging as detailed in 24:2.

I have not seen any specifics about the timing of the stoning incidents, or the alleged stoning verse, in relation to the timing of the revelation of 24:2, that would tell us that such incidents happened after 24:2 was revealed.

As referred to in this post, the timing is unknown. When timing information is uncertain and the doctrine allowing the Sunna to abrogate the Quran is highly debatable and not consented to by the majority, then there can be no cause to overrule the Quran in its statement of what the penalty is for adultery; it's flogging as detailed in 24:2.

You will have a field day with what Ihab wrote about the stoning verse and ruling. He really went to town with the subject in his book.

Ali Hasan Al-Areedh, in his book فتح المنان في نسخ القرآن. confirms that this logical interpretation was first made by Abu-Muslim Al-Asfahaani, rahimahullah. However, he dismisses it casually saying that no other scholar has understood 4:15-16 that way. In fact, he said, the Sahaaba differed on the punishment for homosexuality, so if that interpretation was valid they would have used it as they badly needed text to decide the matter.

A consequence of non-abrogation in this case is that the penalty God has mandated for homosexuality is effected, instead of disagreeing on what it is! This becomes doubly important when one realizes that the preceding two verses call the rulings of God in 4:11-12 before it and 4:15-16 after it, the "limits set by God" and warn of a severe torment in Hell for those who infringe on those limits!

");
}//-->

If the Sahaaba misunderstood 4:15-16 and could not rule on the penalty for homosexuality, what is the excuse of the scholars who learned of Al-Asfahaani's explanation? In fact, according to Al-Jabri, it was Mujaahid, a second generation scholar who spoke a lot about abrogation, who offered that interpretation of 4:15-16.

Al-Jabri, in his book لانسخ في القرآن...لماذا؟, observes that many of the verses claimed abrogated speak of values that lead to social justice! He elaborates on pages 76-77 about that as follows:

Prohibition of familial trusts (الوقف الأهلي). He says many of the Salaf have so ruled. This type of trust limits the income and benefit from the trust to a family, rather than sharing with the public. He does not quote the argument for the prohibition, but he may have thought of,

Which suggests that wealth circulation should not be restricted to be only among the rich. But that is different from familial trusts which insure the livelihood of vulnerable heirs.

Prohibition of unlawful earnings, such as bribery, cheating, business fraud and usury. Islam has instituted the "Where from did you get that" law (من أين لك هذا) in order to protect the public from the tyranny of their rulers.

Encouraging forgiving of loans for borrowers who cannot pay back all or part of their loan.

Monetary expiation of sins, such as murder, reneging on one's oath, Zhahaar and Eelaa' (abstention) of one toward his wife, breaking the Ramadan fast without excuse, violations during pilgrimage.

I find this the most relevant point to Al-Jabri's argument. Islam indeed directs a lot of resources to helping the downtrodden.

Balancing of giveaways. For that, Al-Jabri gives the example of the prophet (PBUH) when he was distributing the booty of Banu An-Nadheer. He gave it all to the migrants and none to the Medina natives, except one who was indeed poor. The rest were well-to-do compared to the migrants. The Prophet (PBUH) simply followed God's instruction in

Encouraging the work ethic. Al-Jabri quotes,

And the hadeeth of the Prophet (PBUH) in which he said, "Whoever goes to bed exhasted from the work of his hands, goes to bed forgiven!" It should be noted, however, that while the message of that hadeeth is laudable, the hadeeth's authenticity is weak.

Al-Jabri then adds that Islam forbids earning a living without doing meaningful work. He cites a hadeeth of the Prophet (PBUH) in which he tells his fellows, "Stay away from Qasaama!" They asked, "What is Qasaama, O Messenger of God?" He replied, "A man heading a group of people and taking a portion of the wages of each." That hadeeth too has been rated weak.

Prohibition of luxury. Al-Jabri does not quote evidence for that. Luxury is not prohibited in Islam unless it leads to something forbidden, such as depriving the poor of their due.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum